EDITORIAL: Calling NRA a 'fringe group' is terrible politics

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., put his foot in it the other day when he described the National Rifle Association as a "very extremist" "fringe group."

Forget the accuracy of calling a organization that boasts 4.3-million members a "fringe" group. And never mind that according to public opinion surveys the NRA is more popular than the president of the United States (54 percent to 52 percent) and more popular than Congress by a country mile.

The real problem with Schumer's pronouncement is that it's terrible politics, especially for his party.

Advertisement

Come 2014, Senate Democrats have to successfully defend at least six seats to maintain their majority. If Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the country, wants to see his party accomplish that, spitting in the eye of America's gun owners is not the smartest way to go about it -- especially, given the number of seats that will be contested in already pro-gun states like Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Dakota, North Carolina and West Virginia. In these states being seen as weak on gun rights is just as chancy as a New York politician being seen as weak on abortion rights.

For all the recent talk about how fractured the Republican Party has become in the last few years, the Democratic Party is not without its factions. Schumer certainly isn't making it any easier for Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to herd the cats in his caucus. And maybe he doesn't intend to. Schumer has made no secret of his desire for Reid's job.

In any case, anti-gun politics may be good for fundraising in New York but not so much in Nevada or the other states mentioned above.

Ted Cruz, the newest GOP senator from the well-armed state Texas, has predicted that President Obama's push for greater gun control will create such a backlash that it will cost Democrats the Senate.

We doubt that.

The president's proposals on firearms have been far from unreasonable. Even more than a few gun owners support better and more comprehensive background checks, limits on the size of ammunition magazines, and the banning of military-style assault weapons.

If anything, the president's proposals don't go nearly far enough to actually cut down on gun violence, the vast majority of which is committed with handguns in big cities. "Stop and Frisk" programs, like the one instituted in New York City, have taken hundreds of illegal guns off the streets and helped to cut the murder rate there significantly. Yet, this policy is being challenged as an assault on civil liberties and racial to boot. It would be nice if the president voiced his support for the NYPD's Stop and Frisk program in the interest of protecting minority communities and the children who live in them.

More vigorously prosecuting illegal gun possession by felons would be another effective tool in cutting gun violence. But there's a downside to that approach. It costs money. More cops on the street and more criminals in jail require greater public expenditures and higher taxes. Passing new and stricter laws is a lot less costly, but it's also a lot more effective in actually reducing gun violence.

We've been involved in this renewed conversation on guns for weeks now and if we are any closer to achieving any consensus it certainly won't be helped by demonizing one side or the other.

There are very legitimate reasons for people to want to have and own guns for sport and protection, as well as very legitimate reasons to control their sale. We all have an interest and doing our best to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't -- and aren't allowed to -- have them. Even the NRA has been clear on that point.

But a fringe group?

If the NRA is an "extremist" organization so is National Abortion Rights Action League and the Sierra Club. What all these groups have in common is a strong belief in the importance of their cause. That doesn't make them extreme. It makes them players in the world of national politics. And if Chuck Schumer thinks he's going to win this argument by name-calling, he's not as smart as he often sounds.